Talk:Entrada (Fringe)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Grapple X (talk · contribs) 02:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Why does this feel familiar?

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
The review from Time seems to contain a few errors ("since its committed to", inconsistent italics, and some iffy grammar) - perhaps it's best to tag the quote with {{sic}} to prevent hypercorrection here.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
No problems here.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Scope is grand. If you can come across some filming details they'd be lovely but it's fine as is.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Neutrality's good.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Sole image is used appropriately and is a free file. No problems there then/
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Quick pass for this one. Nothing new there! Well done again. GRAPPLE X 02:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]